Jane Doe, f/k/a Kristy Althaus v. Aylo Global Entertainment Inc., Aylo USA Incorporated, Aylo Billing US Corp., Aylo Holdings S.À.R.L., Aylo Freesites, Ltd., d/b/a “Porn Hub,” 9219-1568 Quebec, Inc., and Aylo Premium Ltd.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 13, 2025
Docket2:23-cv-07488
StatusUnknown

This text of Jane Doe, f/k/a Kristy Althaus v. Aylo Global Entertainment Inc., Aylo USA Incorporated, Aylo Billing US Corp., Aylo Holdings S.À.R.L., Aylo Freesites, Ltd., d/b/a “Porn Hub,” 9219-1568 Quebec, Inc., and Aylo Premium Ltd. (Jane Doe, f/k/a Kristy Althaus v. Aylo Global Entertainment Inc., Aylo USA Incorporated, Aylo Billing US Corp., Aylo Holdings S.À.R.L., Aylo Freesites, Ltd., d/b/a “Porn Hub,” 9219-1568 Quebec, Inc., and Aylo Premium Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jane Doe, f/k/a Kristy Althaus v. Aylo Global Entertainment Inc., Aylo USA Incorporated, Aylo Billing US Corp., Aylo Holdings S.À.R.L., Aylo Freesites, Ltd., d/b/a “Porn Hub,” 9219-1568 Quebec, Inc., and Aylo Premium Ltd., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANE DOE, f/k/a KRISTY ALTHAUS, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-07488-MWF-AGR an individual, 12 Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald Plaintiff, 13 DISCOVERY MATTER REFERRED v. TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ALICIA 14 G. ROSENBERG AYLO GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT 15 INC., a Delaware corporation; AYLO STIPULATED PROTECTIVE USA INCORPORATED, a Delaware ORDER 16 corporation; AYLO BILLING US CORP., a Delaware corporation; AYLO 17 HOLDINGS S.À.R.L., a foreign entity; NOTE CHANGES MADE BY AYLO FREESITES, LTD., d/b/a COURT 18 “PORN HUB,” a foreign entity; 9219- 1568 QUEBEC, INC., a foreign entity; 19 and AYLO PREMIUM LTD., a foreign corporation, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order governing protected information 7 prior to trial in this case. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 8 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 9 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 10 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 11 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.5, below, 12 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 13 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 14 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 15 the court to file material under seal. 16 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 17 Plaintiff’s Good Cause Statement: “It is ‘well-established’ in our case law 18 that discovery is ‘presumptively public.’” Cordero v. Stemilt AG Services, LLC, 142 19 F.4th 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. 20 Ct.—N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)). Both the federal 21 common law and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a right of access to court 22 records. San Jose, at 1099, 1101-02. “Generally, the public can gain access to 23 litigation documents and information produced during discovery unless the party 24 opposing disclosure shows ‘good cause’ why a protective order is necessary.” 25 Cordero, at 1207 (quoting Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 26 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) (Phillips)). In particular, the Ninth Circuit “strongly 27 favors access to discovery materials” for individuals engaged in other litigation 28 1 advances the interests of judicial economy by avoiding the wasteful duplication of 2 discovery.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 3 2003). 4 “Rule 26(c) authorizes a district court to override this presumption [for public 5 records] where ‘good cause’ is shown.” San Jose, 187 F.3d at 1103. “If a court 6 finds particularized harm that would result from public disclosure it must ‘balance[] 7 the public and private interests to decide whether a protective order is necessary.’” 8 Cordero, at 1207 (quoting Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211). 9 Due to the nature and notoriety of Plaintiff’s claims as a survivor of sex 10 trafficking, discovery in this Action will involve the production of Plaintiff’s private 11 and sensitive information for which special protection is warranted. There is a 12 compelling interest in protecting Plaintiff’s privacy and safety by shielding her 13 identifying information from the public. Plaintiff is routinely harassed, stalked, and 14 assaulted by members of the public related to the claims alleged in this Action. 15 Plaintiff has been forced to change her name. Plaintiff is expressly granted use of 16 the pseudonym “Jane Doe f/k/a Kristy Althaus” in this Action. In addition, both 17 federal and state sex trafficking, sexual assault, and other applicable rape shield laws 18 exist to protect the privacy of survivors like Plaintiff (including but not limited to 19 U.S. Const. Amend. XIV § 1, Fed. R. Evid. 412, Cal. Const., Art. 1 § 1, Cal. Evid. 20 Code §§ 782, 783, 1035.8, 1103, 1106, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.220.) Plaintiff 21 therefore submits that there is good cause to protect Plaintiff’s identity, contact 22 information, location of residence, and other private or personally identifying 23 information from public disclosure with a protective order. 24 Furthermore, given the scope of this Action, it is impracticable to give notice 25 to each individual whose personal information may be the subject of discovery in 26 this Action, there is good cause for the protections and procedures set forth herein 27 to adequately protect against the improper disclosure or unauthorized use of third- 28 1 Defendants’1 Good Cause Statement: Defendants agree to protect 2 Plaintiff’s identity, contact information, location of residence, and other private or 3 personally identifying information from public disclosure with a protective order. 4 This Action is likely to involve discovery of corporate trade secrets, customer 5 and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, 6 technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 7 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 8 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 9 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 10 regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 11 development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 12 rights of third parties), system design, database design, algorithms, technology, 13 technical data or information, vendor agreements, claim/litigation information, 14 nonpublic policies and procedures, personal identifying information, sensitive 15 personal information, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 16 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state, federal, 17 or foreign statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law (including but not 18 limited to California Consumer Privacy Act, EU’s General Data Protection 19 Regulation, Canada’s Consumer Privacy Protection Act, and Quebec’s Act 20 Respecting The Protection of Personal Information In The Private Sector), or any 21 other information that a party is obligated to preserve as confidential, including all 22 information compiled, derived, excerpted, or generated from such materials. 23 Joint Statement: Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 24 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery 25 materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 26

27 1 “Defendants” are Aylo Global Entertainment Inc., Aylo USA Incorporated, Aylo Billing US Corp., Aylo Freesites Ltd, 9219-1568 Quebec Inc., Aylo Premium Ltd, 28 1 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 2 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 3 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 4 information is justified in this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jane Doe, f/k/a Kristy Althaus v. Aylo Global Entertainment Inc., Aylo USA Incorporated, Aylo Billing US Corp., Aylo Holdings S.À.R.L., Aylo Freesites, Ltd., d/b/a “Porn Hub,” 9219-1568 Quebec, Inc., and Aylo Premium Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jane-doe-fka-kristy-althaus-v-aylo-global-entertainment-inc-aylo-usa-cacd-2025.